Agenda item

To consider the call-in of the above decision due to be made by the Executive Member for Transport and Planning on 12 April 2018. The report sets out a brief background to the item called-in by Councillors Craghill, D’Agorne and D Taylor and the role of, and options available to, this Committee under the agreed pre-decision call-in arrangements.

Members considered a report which set out the reasons for the call-in and the role of the Committee, together with options available to it under the agreed pre-decision call-in arrangements.

In accordance with those arrangements three Members (Councillors Craghill, D’Agorne and D Taylor) had called in the above item for the following reasons:

     i.        Whilst we understand that the St Sampson’s Square toilets building no longer provides any toilet facilities for people with disabilities, webelieve its loss will be seen my many residents as part of thepicture of declining public toilet facilities in central York, whichneeds much more attention.

    ii.        We are very aware of the importance for many York residents of the fountain in its current location as a meeting point and (when it was still operating) an important feature giving interest and variety to the street scene at the heart of York – which should be a matter of civic pride.

   iii.        We understand that much of the current fountain mechanisms cannot be repaired but would need to be replaced to make the existing fountain work again. However, we would like the forthcoming Executive Member decision to ensure that, if it is decided to remove the current fountain, this is followed by a quick to install temporary use including plentiful seating and that a longer term solution is sought through an open public consultation with all options open including the possibility of a new fountain or ground level ‘pop-up’ fountains.

  iv.        We would particularly like the Executive Member decision to guarantee that the space will not simply be paved over and used for more market stalls or left as a completely empty space.

   v.        We would like to see clear costings which enable everyone to compare the costs of all the options.

  vi.        We believe a cross party pre-decision public scrutiny is appropriate to help ensure we find a way forward that takes account of everyone’s views.

Councillors Craghill and Taylor spoke, on behalf of the Call-In Members, to state that they welcomed the revised paper, but still wished to raise residents’ concerns about the loss of the fountain as a meeting place and focal point. They felt that any replacement or alternative chosen should be an improvement to the City Centre rather than just the cheapest option. They went on to state that, as some people felt the current fountain was an obstacle to festivals and other use of the area, that perhaps a more modern design of fountain, which could be switched off to create a flat surface for events, would be a good option.

In response to questions from Members they stated:

·        Their desired outcome would be that the decision not be made so quickly, with more time to consider the options, including bringing the fountain back into working order. This would include making it clearer to residents that this measure was to improve Parliament Street;

·        There should be wide public consultation and it would be sensible to delay demolishing the existing fountain until this had taken place; and

·        They did not want to delay a decision being made if that would have an impact on the Bloom Festival.

The Executive Member for Transport and Planning attended the meeting to answer questions. In response to the points raised by the Call-In Members he stated that he would take into account everything that had been said when he made his decision. In response to Member questions he stated that consultation would take place with York Civic Trust, Make it York and the York BID. They would put forward proposals as to what form any replacement should take and it would be for the Executive Member to decide.

The Corporate Director – Economy and Place was in attendance via conference call. In response to Member questions he stated:

·        The cost for Option 1 was an ongoing cost of £10K per annum when operational;

·        This was not a quick decision as the fountain had been switched off in 2008;

·        Removal of the fountain and creation of the space would give the opportunity for engagement on a replacement; and

·        There were also opportunities moving forward to consider funding, for example for a piece of public/civic architecture.

Members then debated the ‘call-in’ fully and considered the options outlined in the report, namely whether to make any formal comments to the Executive or not.

Some Members stated that the original fountain was not very attractive and had attracted vandalism and Anti Social Behaviour. They felt that its success had been as a meeting point and so a replacement need not be a new fountain. Other Members felt that removal with no subsequent plan was unfair to those who felt the fountain should be retained.

Members all agreed that there needed to be wide and meaningful consultation with both relevant groups and residents.

Councillor D’Agorne moved Option 1 - to make specific recommendations or comments to the Executive Member on the report, in light of the reasons given for the pre-decision call-in, namely to recommend that the Executive Member approve Option 2 of the report. This was not seconded and the motion fell.

Resolved:  That there were no grounds to make specificrecommendations or comments to the Executive Member inrespect of the report.

Reason:     To provide Scrutiny’s views on the report ahead of it being presented to the Executive Member.